Senior White House officials, in conversations with reporters today, are floating the idea that President Obama is secretly negotiating with Sen. Olympia Snowe over a health care compromise that would phase in a government-funded health care alternative if private insurance companies fail to meet quality and cost benchmarks over a certain period of the time. The public discussion of the Snowe "compromise" is meant to test the reaction of House Democrats, who will pass a bill that includes an immediate public option added to a new health insurance exchange. The White House hopes that, having voted for a public option, House Dems would accept a "trigger" as part of a conference committee compromise rather than putting the kibosh on the entire health care reform project. In some ways, this strategy is old, and in some ways it's new. For months, White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel has been pushing the idea of a "trigger" internally, and he and Snowe regularly trade legislative and political intelligence. When President Obama addresses a joint session of Congress next week, he will present an outline of a comprehensive health care bill -- one that will be universal in character. Privately, the White House is signaling that Obama is willing to sign a bill that is less than universal in its coverage ambitions, though the President will not say so publicly.

Liberal/progressive proponents of a "robust" public option are skeptical of claims by reporters that Obama won't threaten to veto a bill without a public option Unfortunately, the skepticism, accompanied by harranguing over anonymous sources, is misplaced -- Obama hasn't ever threatened to veto a bill without a public option and won't. For a while now, Obama's aides have believed that the 50-odd progressives in the House who are demanding a public option will get their jollies if they can pass a bill out of the House, and that they will be too afraid to oppose a bill that makes it out of a subsequent conference committee -- a bill that President Obama would specifically endorse. For now, the administration will proceed as if both the House and Senate would pass health care legislation via the normal process. The threat of passing a bill through reconciliation is "real," but it still isn't the "go" option because it is, as of yet, politically unsalable, at least in the opinion of White House aides. The politics of health care have been distorted, they believe, to the point where Obama needs to make the case that the regular (even a-historical) congressional procedure is being used by obstructionists to prevent the passage of the bill. This may be self-evident to some Democrats, but the American people aren't there yet, and until they're there, the White House will do whatever it can to build its 60 vote supermajority.

(emphasis added)

On edit: "politically unsalable"? To whom? Obama and other Democrats, including Reid, have floated this option.

If an individual mandate goes into effect before the public option, those of us on the left will be furious. No bail-out of the corrupt health insurance cabal until a roust public option goes into effect!

it has that Rahm stink to it. Everyone needs to flood the white house and respective congressional offices with calls and mail. No true public option = we sit and the let the party self immolate. A better democratic party will arise from the ashes. I really don't think they have a clue that the people who put them in power are not bluffing.

But it may be a shadow play - start with a trigger agreement and exchange it for stronger insurance that it will be deficit neutral.

I think that for many the question of being deficit neutral is more important than the public option.

(If it works this way expect every bridge in Maine to be rebuilt!) The President has tremendous power and Snowe is getting ready to cash in on the political jackpot of a decade - especially if she gets an agreement not to run somebody against her.

....which will be activated, because the insurance companies can't and won't hold costs down or make needed reforms, for a shorter delay of a HR 3200 clone, with a more speedy implementation of the post-trigger legislation, say 2011.

16. Why is the White House floating trial balloons about triggers and 2-year delay?

How can we sit still on our collective asses when we see the games being played in the Beltway at our expense?

The Divisions in the White House Over Health-Care Reform

This is health-care reform's endgame, or close to it. Next Wednesday, Barack Obama will give a prime-time address before both houses of Congress. But that's not all he's giving Congress. The administration is going to put a plan down on paper. The question is what it will say.

Conversations with a number of White House officials make it clear that, at this point, even they don't know. The argument was raging as recently as last night, and appears to have hardened into two main camps. Both camps agree that the cost of the bill has to come down. The question is how much, and what can be sacrificed.

The first camp could be called "universal-lite." They're focused on preserving the basic shape of the bill. They think a universal plan is necessary for a number of reasons: For one thing, the insurance market regulations don't work without universality, as you can't really ask insurers to offer standard prices if the healthy and the young don't have to enter the system. For another, it will be easier to change subsidies or improve the benefit package down the road if the initial offerings prove inadequate. New numbers are easier than new features. Creating a robust structure is the most important thing. This camp seems to be largely headed by the policy people.

The second camp is not universal at all. This camp believes the bill needs to be scaled back sharply in order to ensure passage. Covering 20 million people isn't as good as covering 40 million people, but it's a whole lot better than letting the bill fall apart and covering no one at all. It's also a success of some sort, and it gives you something to build on. What that sacrifices in terms of structure it gains in terms of political appeal. This camp is largely headed by members of the political team.

Both camps accept that the administration's proposal will be less generous than what has emerged from either the HELP or House Committees. The question, it seems, is how much less generous.

I know it won't go over well here, but it allows us to impose the policy elements (transportability, no pre-existing condition exclusions, etc.) and places the burden on the Republicans to prove the "miracle of the private sector" can bring down costs or face Government intervention.

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators

Important Notices: By participating on this discussion
board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules
page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the
opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent
the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.